Agenda item

The Scrutiny Committee considered the reports contained in the District Executive Agenda for the 4 October 2016 and made the following comments:

Report from Musgrove Park Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (Agenda item 6)

The Chairman introduced the report and requested members provide feedback on the style and content of the briefing note.

Community Right to Bid Quarterly Update Report July to September 2016 (Agenda item7)

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning provided highlights of the report and proposed that updates are decreased to six monthly.  Scrutiny Committee agreed six monthly updates would be appropriate going forward.

Somerset Armed Forces Covenant – Overview of Progress 2016 (Agenda item 8)

Members sought clarification on paragraph 16 of the report where it states that with the exception of three service areas, SSDC knows very little about the Armed Services community within the district. Members asked what specific actions are being taken to address this and how they could contribute suggestions or questions?

Members also queried where responsibility now lies for maintaining Commonwealth War Graves in the district?

Medium Term Financial Strategy and Plan – Flexible Use of Capital Receipts (Agenda item 9)

Members supported the recommendations in the report.

Medium Term Financial Strategy and Plan – Four Year Settlement (Agenda item 10)

Members considered the report and an additional paper supplied by the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Legal Services. Scrutiny members acknowledged the differing points of view expressed by the s151 Officer and the Portfolio Holder, noting that the authority is in a very difficult position, with neither option being particularly favourable. The Committee discussed the potential impact of accepting the 4 year settlement and not accepting it and noted the s151’s confirmation that DCLG had reiterated that no authority would be better off if they did not accept the deal. Consideration was also given to the reputational risks of informing the public that the council had willingly accepting a negative RSG position versus informing them we had not accepted three years of certainty in defence of a principle.

Further discussion was about whether it would be possible to follow the example of Wokingham (and example provided by the Portfolio Holder) whereby the period of certainty offered within the deal is accepted but the negative RSG is not. Members concluded that this ‘cherry picking’ approach would not be appropriate and instead noted that in making our application to DCLG, SSDC should strongly reiterate our opposition to the principle of negative RSG.

Members did not indicate a preferred option at this stage, but did feel that members had sufficient information upon which to base a decision at Council on 13^th October.

Infrastructure Projects and Funding for Feasibility Studies (Agenda item 11)

The Assistant Director (Economy) introduced and talked the committee members through the report, and in response to members’ questions confirmed:

·         This will enable Area Committees to explore particular opportunities to develop infrastructure.

·         Spending of capital will still go through the usual process – Capital Bid, Scrutiny and District Executive.

·         Area Committees will be making bids for the remaining Infrastructure Reserve this supports/encourages wider member engagement.

Members accepted the need to ensure that internal decision making processes effectively balance timeliness and the principles of transparent and accountable decision making. They sought clarification that any Executive Decisions were being delegated to the Portfolio Holder in consultation with the Strategic Regeneration Board (rather than to the Regeneration Board itself) and that any decisions would be published and subject to Scrutiny in line with existing procedures.

Monthly News Snapshot

Scrutiny Committee made no comments.

District Executive Forward Plan

Scrutiny Committee made no comments.